WT, here you go again . . .
Got a hanky? You need one you're frothing...
not to mention Despite what some of the frothing morons have posted at Message 14872278
Gee, who's doing the frothing, [you fill in the blank]?
Did I say that Clinton was responsible for the market boom?
You stated "I hadn't realized that Democrats in the White House were such bad news for the markets. . . . I guess the last 8 years just didn't happen." See Message 14869753
What's the inference, Einstein? If the Democrats weren't bad for the markets, then I guess that means you believe them to be good for the markets. You forgot to quote the previous comment about the last 8 years, which implies without no doubt the Clinton administration. There is absolutely no f---n' way you can argue yourself out of this point, WT, so hang it up. Its what you said, and don't insult the readers here with BS disclaiming otherwise. That's the beauty of these boards. There's a record here of exactly what you stated. These boards DON'T LIE about who said what and when. So, again, spare us your whining and insults.
Gore is putting his personal interest ahead of the nation because he won't concede, correct? And he should concede because he probably lost Florida by a few hundred votes? Correct?
Here's my position, WT, if we continue this discussion hereon in a civil manner. I supported, but questioned, Gore's initial actions in Florida regarding the claims of an illegal butterfly ballot, and all the accusations of voter irregularities. I, as you, wish to have a legitimate President in the White House. But it soon became apparent that Gore was not interested in the interest of this country but in his own quest for the presidency regardless of its legitimacy.
He speaks of the will of the people, yet challenges that very will as expressed by some of these local canvassing boards through legal action. I have recently come to the conclusion that Gore's goal is first to possibly achieve the presidency, and if not, do everything politically and legally to undermine a Bush presidency. He is certainly no man who would EVER put the interests of this entire country above his own. This is crystal clear. He is causing serious damage to his own party, and to his brethren that hold Congressional office. He has brought the city sewer politics of Chicago to the national forefront, and to the world scene. Yes, this man has no respect for the national interest.
Well, why hasn't Bush conceded "for the national interest"? After all, he lost the national vote by more than 300,000.
If you would attune yourself to the law, you would note that receiving the popular vote is completely irrelevant to any legal claim to the Presidency. Get your facts and the law straight.
You imply that I'm some sort of big Gore supporter. Fine. I'm not, but, you can believe what you want. I didn't and don't like either of these guys. Voting for Gore required me to hold my nose. But, I'd rather have someone with a brain than a redux of "your Dad's presidency". Baker, Cheney ... give me a break. Same guys that screwed up last time, now we get them with the dopey kid at the top.
You sure sound like a Gore supporter, but if I'm to believe you WT, you're really not much different than I. I don't think George Dubya is the greatest thing since slice bread; I just dislike Al Gore more than George Bush. I would have preferred Bradley on the Democratic ticket, and John McCain on the Republican ticket, and would have had a tough choice between those two than the two battling robots now at the steps to the White House. |
